Skip to main content

About your Search

20130801
20130831
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> allegedly, posedly, i'm sure it was true. >> joining us michael eric dyson, and dana milbank, michael, you've got a dream that joe walsh pays his child support, but on a completely bill o'reilly said that george w. bush wasn't invited, in fact he was invited, as was his fare, as was speaker john boehner, as well as eric cantor. so what gives here? >> the fact that the other shoe has dropped, and we know the real deal, let's see if they're equally aggressive about the as is of these noteworthy republicans. the fact is the civil rights movement at its broadest was a nonpartisan affair. martin luther king jr. and the other leaders of that particular march were invested in the radical transformation of america according to principles of democracy. if you were a supporter, whether libertarian, whether you were republican or democratic, then you could participate freely. the point is these republicans units that they are antitheyically opposed to every moment and gesture of black freedom that was articulated yesterday, and more broadly about progressive realization of rights for gale and lesbian
's get right to our panel. joining us, michael eric dyson of georgetown university, and dana milbank, political columnist for the "washington post." professor, i want to read a statement that ted cruz sent to the dallas morning news, sent out today. said the dallas morning news said i may technically have dual citizenship. assuming that is true, sure, i would renounce any canadien citizenship. nothing against canada, but i'm an american by birth. as a u.s. senator, i believe i should only be an american. professor michael eric jackson, have we officially entered the age of birther irony? >> ironic to be sure. first of all, are you really reading the dallas newspaper to determine your citizenship? that alone is worthy of some deconstruction. but what's interesting here is that is the ironies never cease to amaze me here. and the bitter hypocrisy of the right. now why don't we have a controversy here? because canada is not as nefarious as being born in kenya, the dark continent? so the reality is that you know, if it was good enough for the goose, it's good enough for the gander. if it
on the complex political situation facing the president, i want to bring in dana milbank, political columnist for the "washington post." you just heard andrea mitchell talk about the fact you have this president who came into office, elected in large part getting that democratic nomination because of his caution, but this thing is moving, this train's going in one direction, and that's toward military action. >> that's right. he opposed iraq as a dumb war, but by his own terms, he's left himself absolutely no choice here because he said famously that this was the red line. the use of chemical weapons and if there had been any doubt before, his administration has erased that today. it has to be a very serious response, and as andrea was discussing, the only real question is whether it is this surge cal strike or a more intensive air campaign against the syrian regime. nobody's talking about anything beyond air power at this point. the only certainty we have is that whatever this president does, he's going to be criticized for it for doing too much for doing too little, for going with the unite
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)